I get the feeling that some FSD's are telling their people to try to intimidate passengers who are filming or taking photographs in order to get them to stop, hoping said passengers don't know any better. In this case, they picked on the wrong person.

Which leads me to another question for Rugape: What is it with the intimidation of passengers through "swarms" of screeners surrounding "obstreperous" passengers? Is that part of the training program?

Click to expand...

Some of it may be intimidation or the attempt at intimidation, but I think most of it boils down to either looky loo behavior or trying to end the situation. I have been guilty of inserting myself in a situation that seems to be spiraling or heading towards being out of control (but that was part of the job description for the LTSO position). Sometimes it is just other TSOs interested in what item was found, or what the discussion is about. I have also been guilty of that one from time to time when something really different is found in a bag, I have a tendency to drift over behind the Xray and look at the image and then look at the item when it is pulled out of the bag during the bag check - I have (since visiting here and remembering how that can appear) made a conscious effort to tamp that down, but I am not always entirely successful at it (at least with regards to the xray), especially when it is a firearm or something I have not seen before.

Intimidation is a double edged sword, it can work in some situations, but it can also backfire terribly. It should not be used in the checkpoints under any circumstance, calm rational discussion on the part of the TSOs will yield much better results - even at the LTSO/STSO/TSM level, it just works better. There is no reason to raise your voice (unless the background noise makes it difficult to hear), and being rational about things just works better. Added plus, if the passenger is out of control, I as a TSO am not going to be able to out-shout them,, and that wouldn't serve a purpose, once you degenerate to a shouting match, nobody wins because nobody is thinking. Part of the job is to find solutions to challenges, whether it is a firearm or an oversized LAG, and if we are all shouting at each other, we are not seeking a solution to the challenge, we are all just posturing - annnnnnd looking like we are about 3 years old and just lost our Wubby.

I also wonder if the reason this particular incident didn't escalate further and the little girl did not get a pat down is because her father is an attorney. In this instance perhaps intimidation goes both ways.

I think most of it boils down to either looky loo behavior or trying to end the situation.

Click to expand...

I think there's a big difference between looky loo behavior and menacingly positioning yourself arms crossed in a phalanx right in front of someone recording with their phone, and then threatening them verbally. Looky-loos are one thing, swarming is another.

Our officer did initially mention a pat-down. We admit this was confusing, and contributed to a stressful situation. Very quickly, a manager was able to step in and give guidance.

Click to expand...

Our employees continue to gratuitously molest little kids, this one AFTER she cleared the checkpoint. After inflicting psychological harm on the the little kid, the clerk responsible was overruled by her boss when it became clear the mother was not going along with the program.

Also, our officer told the passenger that it was illegal to film at the checkpoint. This is not the case, and you can take a look at our filming policy here.

Click to expand...

This is indeed NOT the case, yet how do you explain the constant violation of this policy? If your agency cared about it, Bob, TSA would fire them on the spot. That would get the message across. The clerks who do this are not fired because the TSA secretely agrees with these clerks.

TSA’s Federal Security Director at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport (STL) reached out to personally apologize for the incident. He also offered to assist the family the next time they traveled through the airport.

Click to expand...

AFTER this story broke and had legs, your agency did whatever it could to control the PR damage. Those actions did NOT result in policy changes to prevent this in the future. Save your apologies and change your processes and training.What we didn’t do:

The child did not receive a pat-down. You can read our new procedures for children 12 and under here.

Bob, you lying sack of sh*t. The clerks attempted one and were thwarted when the mother started to film them doing it. Did you even read the material at your own link? That set of procedures NOWHERE states that the little kids will NOT be rubbed down. NOWHERE. It states they WILL be screened but provides NO DETAILS on what this will be. Yet you imply that they WILL NOT be molested, when no such gaurantee is made in that policy page: "If your child is unable to walk or stand, the Security Officer will use alternate measures to screen your child while he/she remains in their mobility aid, that may include a visual and physical inspection of their equipment.".

Neither the child nor the parent was detained. TSA does not have the authority to detain passengers. Only Law Enforcement Officers can detain passengers.

Click to expand...

Was the forward progress toward their flight stopped or not, Bob? by your clerks AFTER clearing the checkpoint? It was. Were they free to continue? No! They were detained. These people had nowhere to go but to their aircraft and your clerks stopped them AFTER the checkpoint.

Was the forward progress toward their flight stopped or not, Bob? by your clerks AFTER clearing the checkpoint? It was. Were they free to continue? No! They were detained. These people had nowhere to go but to their aircraft and your clerks stopped them AFTER the checkpoint.

Click to expand...

Methinks that an initial mistake was made at the checkpoint of not screening either the chair or the teddy bear. Somebody realized it and that's why they were stopped after the checkpoint. There is no other explanation.

Methinks that an initial mistake was made at the checkpoint of not screening either the chair or the teddy bear. Somebody realized it and that's why they were stopped after the checkpoint. There is no other explanation.

Methinks that an initial mistake was made at the checkpoint of not screening either the chair or the teddy bear. Somebody realized it and that's why they were stopped after the checkpoint. There is no other explanation.

Click to expand...

Except, they weren't told that. If that was explained to the folks with basic communication skills there probably wouldn't have been a problem.